1 / 17

Less Invasive Interventional treatment can be recommended as 1 st line treatment for “Silent Killer”, AAA

SIR 2009. Less Invasive Interventional treatment can be recommended as 1 st line treatment for “Silent Killer”, AAA. Guy’s & St. Thomas’ Hospital, London, UK TARUN SABHARWAL MD FSIR FCIRSE

isra
Download Presentation

Less Invasive Interventional treatment can be recommended as 1 st line treatment for “Silent Killer”, AAA

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SIR 2009 Less Invasive Interventional treatment can be recommended as 1st line treatment for “Silent Killer”, AAA Guy’s & St. Thomas’ Hospital, London, UK TARUN SABHARWAL MD FSIR FCIRSE K Konstantinos, S.Black, S.Thomas, R.Salter, J.Reidy, C.Sandhu, R.Bell, M.Waltham, T.Carrel, P.Taylor

  2. Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm • Weakened area in the aorta • Natural history of AAA is of slow expansion and rupture with catastrophic consequence

  3. Role of IR in AAA • The goal is to prevent aneurysms from rupturing

  4. AAA Silent Killer • AAA occurs in 5-7% population older than 60yrs • Affects 2.7m Americans and is the 13th death • Risk factors : age, smoking, male sex and family history • Asymptomatic in majority • Back pain, abdominal pain

  5. Rupture • Manifest with unheralded rupture and death • Prognosis after rupture is grim with community based mortality as high as 79% • 59-83% AAA die before reaching hospital • Operative mortality rates are 40% • Leaving at best 10-25% discharge

  6. EVAR compared with Open Repair • Mortality rate for elective surgical repair of nonruptured AAAs is 5% • EVAR is associated with periprocedural mortality benefit compared with open repair (relative risk reduction 3.1) • ↓ periprocedural complications • Benefit of reduced aneurysm related mortality at 4yrs (4% vrs 7%) DREAM and EVAR 1 trials

  7. EVAR offers a less invasive alternative to conventional open repair

  8. Benefits of EVAR over Open repair in rAAA • Local anesthesia • Maintenance of abdominal wall and muscle tone • Decreased aortic occlusion time • Diminished blood loss • Better thermoregulation

  9. Common perceptions of EVAR • High late complication rate • High rate of secondary interventions • Long term surveillance required: more expensive and risk of radiation cancers

  10. Secondary Intervention rates Endoluminal repair • RETA (Thomas EJVES 2005 n=1823) 38% at 5 y • EUROSTAR (Laheij BJS 2000 n=1023) 38% at 4y • EVAR 1 (Lancet 2005 n=543 EVAR) 20% at 4 y • EVAR 2 (Lancet 2005 n=166 EVAR) 26% at 4 y • Greenberg (JVS 2008 n=739) 20% at 5 y • Sampram (JVS 2002 n=703) 35% at 3 y EVAR 1 Open repair cohort: 6% at 4 y

  11. Aim of our Study • Analyze the treatment of patients with AAA with EVAR • Assess rate of secondary interventions • Assess need for intense CT surveillance

  12. Method • Prospective database • 453 patients • 2000 – 2008 • Male/female = 11/1 • Follow up 30 months (2-90) • Age 76 (40 – 93) • Aneurysm diameter 6.1 (5.3 – 11) • Elective 406 (89.8%) • Urgent 17 (3.6%) • Emergency 30 (6.6%)

  13. Results • 30-day mortality: 15/453 (3.3%) • Technical Success: 451/453 (99.6%) • Open conversion: 1 urgent : 1 emergent • Secondary Interventions: 33/453 (7.2%) of which 6/453 (1.3%) from surveillance

  14. Conclusion • Low secondary intervention rate for EVAR • Secondary interventions are effective • Surveillance with intensive CT scanning identifies few complications • Questionable benefit of intensive CT surveillance protocols • Suggested current protocol: 3/12 CT and yearly duplex thereafter

  15. Conclusions •  durability and effectiveness of EVAR • EVAR ↓ risks of surgery, amount of pain, large incisions, hospital stay and much shorter recovery time

More Related